And G20? Re: [governance] Internet G8 meeting

Wed May 11 09:15:47 EDT 2011

Process is all-important.  Elections are pure process, policy and
law-making are pure process.  Without an appropriate and legitimate
process, we have nothing.  Without legitimate process we have either
(1) Garbage in, garbage out, or (2)  We put good "meat" in (to a
defectively processing meat grinder), and get garbage out.

Now, we all tend to consider the views of opponents (or the opponents
wishing to speak or vote that we ever so "humbly" consider to be
uninformed) to be "garbage in."  But to deny the right of a say or of
a vote on any basis is to deny freedom to those who do not have the
vote or the say, because without the right to make a mistake or
advocate a wrongheaded view one is certainly not "free" -- one is
managed or controlled like a young child out of fear the young child
will make too many dangerous errors.  Thus universal suffrage, or as
close to it as we can possibly get at any given moment, is the only
pathway to policy legitimacy.

I've spoken before about the shortcomings of multistakeholderism - it
was derived directly from corporate governance and is itself still
stacked in favor of corporate interests, albeit less so than
non-multistakeholder approaches.  I can support the letter, but only
in the understanding that it is a step forward under present
circumstances and by no means the ultimate goal.

Alternatively, whether or not IGC is invited to the table, any
"policy" or "law" that comes out of a limited process like a G8 is
subject to being questioned by any who were not at the G8 table (and
any who consider their democratic processes within a G8 country as
having been  unduly compromised).  At least opening up to a
multistakeholder approach mitigates (though it does not at all
eliminate) the problem of legitimacy.

Making policy or law and then enforcing it against those without a
right of representation is a mere act of force, not one of legitimate
law.  It is always good to ask for, and insist on, a proper process.
Without it, what do we have?

Paul Lehto, J.D.

On 5/11/11, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Despite being more inclusive in terms of geopolitical representation, I
> believe G20 does not fulfill the need to the kind of discussions we are
> advocating in our statement: open to all countries on equal footing and
> genuinely multistakeholder.  But it would make sense if countries excluded
> from the debate in the G8 use the possibility to take the debate to G20 as a
> way of political pressure.
>
> Marília
>
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Meryem Marzouki
> <meryem at marzouki.info>wrote:
>
>> And why not the G20? Just curious about the arguments.
>> Meryem
>>
>> Le 11 mai 2011 à 11:56, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I think it is too late to change the statement since the voting has
>> started.
>> >
>> > I have voted already but would want to withdraw my support for the
>> statement if we would change it and now suggest that the G20 is our
>> preferred group to address Internet policies.
>> >
>> > jeanette
>> >
>> > On 11.05.2011 11:38, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>> >> Hi all,
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, I'm jumping in even later than Bill!
>> >>
>> >> I think the statement is OK w.r.t. Bill's comment, precisely because,
>> >> as
>> >> Jeremy pointed, it asks for the eG8, and not the G8 itself, to be open
>> >> to other stakeholders. That doesn't contradict the fact that the G8
>> >> will
>> >> probably adopt at least some kind of declaration, on the basis of the
>> >> eG8 conclusions.
>> >>
>> >> But I would like to suggest an addition, which I think wouldn't
>> >> radically change the statement and is in line with IGC positions so
>> >> far.
>> >> This year and under the French presidency, there's not only the G8
>> >> Summit (26-27 May in Dauville) but also the G20 Summit (3-4 November in
>> >> Cannes). It's particularly noticeable that the e-thing is held under
>> >> the
>> >> G8 and not the G20.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe we can add a sentence (related to our statement that " policies
>> >> framed together by the most powerful nations, quite likely, will become
>> >> the default global norm", 5th para) stating that Internet issues should
>> >> have been addressed by the G20 rather than the G8. I think that, in
>> >> addition, this would certainly be backed by some of the governments
>> >> from
>> >> the 12 excluded countries (not to mention those that are not even part
>> >> of G20). If there are no objection, I'm confident that Jeremy and Izumi
>> >> could draft a good sentence to express this point.
>> >>
>> >> BTW, the website of the French presidency of G8-G20 is at:
>> >> http://www.g20-g8.com, and there's an English version available.
>> >>
>> >> Finally one question: will the statement be submitted to NGO signatures
>> >> (I mean especially outsite the IGC)?
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >> Meryem
>> >>
>> >> Le 11 mai 2011 à 10:39, William Drake a écrit :
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On May 11, 2011, at 9:50 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The proposed eG8 will not be a negotiating forum, any more than the
>> >>>> IGF. In that respect, it is nothing like the G8 meetings proper. So I
>> >>>> don't see that there is an inconsistency here.
>> >>>
>> >>> I had a different impression based on the side events of past 68
>> >>> summits, For example the Okinawa summit released the World Ec Forum's
>> >>> report and recs on the global digital divide (which I wrote) and the
>> >>> main meeting endorsed their thrust and promised cash (which generally
>> >>> failed to materialize). Other summits have made similarly declarations
>> >>> on cybersecurity and whatnot that came in part from non-IGO adjuncts.
>> >>> And the news reportage on this one
>> >>>
>> http://www.telecompaper.com/news/internet-g8-to-be-held-in-paris-on-24-25-may
>> >>> says The "Internet G8", a conference to be held in Paris on 24-25 May
>> >>> before the official G8 summit in Deauville, has been conceived t*o
>> >>> generate debate and ultimately a set of proposals from private sector
>> >>> stakeholders for the consideration of the eight heads of government,*
>> >>> *
>> >>> *
>> >>> Maybe our French colleagues can clarify the precise agenda, but from
>> >>> what I'd hear this may be another one of those international events in
>> >>> which Sarko tries to launch some big new initiatives that's not been
>> >>> fully vetted with counterpart countries. In this context, it'd be
>> >>> surprising if there are no recs or declarations of any sort being
>> >>> provided by the private sector heavies he's assembled. And if so, then
>> >>> the IGF is sort of an odd model to say they should follow, no?
>> >>>
>> >>> Or maybe I'm missing something….
>> >>>
>> >>> Bill
>> >>> ____________________________________________________________
>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >>>
>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >>>
>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>> >> Email: meryem at marzouki.info <mailto:meryem at marzouki.info>
>> >> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr <http://www-polytic.lip6.fr>
>> >> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>> >> <http://www.iris.sgdg.org>
>> >> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org <http://www.edri.org>
>> >>
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >    http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France
>> Email: meryem at marzouki.info
>> Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr
>> IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org
>> EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t